I agree with you. Nothing guarantees…, you are right absolutely
But remember that i was just following the wrong logic of the guarantee wrote by the guy that said that if Snell did 1:44 with long runs and tempos, there long runs and tempos are good for 800m.
There you are right. The training of top class performances, world records, that doesn´t guarantee that JUST the training of those who do that level of top performances allow another runner to reach the same kind of performance.
This i why i refuse to accept as well, but it´s a recurrent simplistic Lydiardism argumentation it´s not unusual some people from the Lydiardism says that one kind of training leads to performance enhance.
Single cases, or your usual speech that start by "Lydiard told me...so and so" isn´t nothing that we might take a rich conclusion about what training methodology to use, or that kind of training might be generalized or seen as an example or advice whatever individual to do the same kind of training.
This is the pertinent conclusion of the long runs for the 800m up to HM. Of course that i don´t ignore that some people did perform well and did enhance his 800m pbs while follow Lydiard straight or include the Lydiard typical weekly long run in his training program.
But we need to go deeply in the long run analysis from the perspective of the training methodology.
What we know and understand about then long run by the information and the example from the others ? A few did, HRE did and he says the long run among his complete training package made him huge performance progress. But the fact is that among top performers, more than those who did the long run, they don´t and those who don´t, they perform as well if not better that those who do the long run.
Secondly, if we want to think about a less than 2 minute run, we see that the level of specification of +2hours long run doesn´t nothing of specificity at all.
However we accept that even in a less than 2minute run like is the 800m, that some say that the percent of demand of the aerobic system I 800m is some 40%, then we need to enhance our aerobic system, not just as condition to able to train at anaerobic high plateau that the 800m demands, but also because we know that if we improve our aerobic condition we might do easily the 800m anaerobic training 800m need.
The problem here is IF the long run is the best and efficient way to improve the aerobic condition relate to 800m ? Or that are best efficient ways to improve the aerobic condition for 800 event demand , or to face the demand of the anaerobic percent of the 800m event ?
If we do aerobic runs in our training, but shorter ones sessions, spread along every training cycle, that able the runner to enhance a better aerobic condition, that the same total mileage that includes the typical weekly long run. Therefore the long run doesn´t bring no special or extra-benefit or extra-value to efficient enhance of the aerobic condition that by doing just aerobic runs but shorter distance or time duration than the long run can´t possess. On the contrary, shorter aerobic runs are easy to carry on an not so hard as is the long run for short-middle-distance specialists.
I could go on and bring the physiologic argument why short runs are efficient that long runs to that aerobic enhance target goal, but you HRE, you refuse to debate the physiologic argument and accept the physiologic evidence because you always say “I don´t if what you say it´s true, I don´t know nothing about physiology”
The superior efficiency of short runs as enhance the aerobic condition instead of long runs is more pertinent as shorter is the event you are training for.
HRE. It´s true that i might said that you aren´t one straight Lydiard runner. I said that in one precise context of the debate, But i said, and i don´t want to deny or excuse.
But if someone asks me about you i will say that despite you might not follow Lydiard strictly, you are Lydiard addicted. So addicted that if i will show you some of my training schedules you will say that i was the perfect Lydiard disciple.
However my training at some period of my training career might seem Lydiard training. But it´s just an inappropriate conclusion, because when i did that training i did follow quite different training guides with no idea or knowledge that Lydiard training in some aspects is similar to my own training.
Therefore in semantics i may say "Lydiard training is similar to my own training, not my training that is similar to Lydiard". But in your case, if you don´t follow the Lydiard by the book, it´s just a coincidence, because your mind, your attitude, your credo was, is, and will be "Just Lydiard".
If you are happy with the Lydiardism, it´s ok. If that satisfies you or fulfill you it´s ok. But don´t try to sell or that I might accept your own ideas or from someone from the Lydiardism that are absolutely poor as training methodology.